Urban growth — inclusion versus protectionism

October 20, 2018 by Fred Allebach

With two years before the current 20-year Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expires, advocates are positioning for a ballot initiative to reinstate the same exact UGB for the next 20 years. A different approach to the UGB issue is to keep an open mind concerning alternatives as they pertain to affordable housing. A comprehensive UGB review is called for so the public understands all the land use and zoning issues and how they are likely to affect housing in Sonoma and the lower valley urban area as a whole.

First let’s distinguish between “the” UGB and “a” UGB. The UGB is the current arrangement, and talk of reauthorizing the UGB means extending the same boundary and legal text, by vote, for another 20 years.  The UGB has been advertised by advocates as having provisions that allow for pushing the edge for affordable housing. However, according to former Planning Director David Goodison, these four provisions are impossible to satisfy.

The first two provisions concern protecting property rights and preventing “takings.” The third provision is a poison pill, that there be no available land within the UGB to accommodate affordable housing before the edge can be pushed. The fourth is another poison pill, that the proposed housing not exceed the minimum regional housing needs allocation, which is not adequate anyway to address the housing current crisis. A new UGB text needs to allow more flexibility, and favor the development of affordable housing more than strict allegiance to an artificial boundary.

The prime issue here is Area Median Income or AMI affordable housing, and what the city will actually do in a timely way to meet its responsibility to build and provide for such housing. By all measures, business as usual (BAU) processes have not gotten the job done, nor will they. BAU results in predominantly market rate housing and 400 square foot inclusionary stalls for workers. A UGB-related housing checkmate exists now. The end result is the dominance of wealthy white neighborhoods, segregation, a lot of idealistic talk, and throwing the working class under the displacement bus.

Part of local BAU is an unquestioning, doctrinaire, regional adherence to open spaces, parks, UGBs, etc. This overall pattern makes the Bay Area, and Sonoma, attractive visually and recreationally, but also contributes to the housing crisis by establishing protectionist parameters for where housing can be built. The end result has basically been to burn the bridge to any immigration, to stoke inflation, and to allow little AMI housing anywhere. It’s time to really look at the forces at play, of which UGBs are a part, and make some pragmatic AMI housing gains ASAP.

The public needs AMI housing now, not years of fighting over less land and high density infill that result in more reinforcement of the east side/ west side/ Springs/ Sonoma zoning segregation. What is necessary, for a comprehensive valley housing strategy, is impartial and transparent UGB and housing opportunity site data gathering, to work up a comprehensive set of lower valley regional affordable housing alternatives. And, to rank what is actually possible.

The city’s UGB re-authorization issue is a full lower valley issue when it comes to addressing affordable housing. In today’s world “affordable housing” means AMI-spectrum, middle class housing.

The city council should vote to extend the current UGB until 2023, to defuse the pressure for a ballot initiative that will would lock in the same plan for another 20 years, and allow time to sync city and county General Plan housing elements. Let’s not continue to cloister off Sonoma with a 40-year restriction that prevents a pragmatic and unified plan to address the area’s housing crisis.